Phase II Sedimentation Assessment Upper Missouri River Basin

gayoldMechanics

Feb 21, 2014 (3 years and 4 months ago)

290 views


Phase II Sedimentation Assessment
for the

Upper Missouri River Basin
Assessment Report
Muddy Creek near Vaughn, Montana

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming
In Cooperation with
Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition
June 2009
Phase II Sedimentation Assessment
for the
Upper Missouri River Basin
Assessment Report
Prepared for:
Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition
Prepared by:
United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Montana State Office North Dakota State Office
Nebraska State Office South Dakota State Office
In Consultation With:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey
Proposed Action:
To evaluate existing sedimentation data and qualitatively identify resource impacts from
excessive sedimentation entering the six mainstem reservoirs in the Upper Missouri River
Basin. To prioritize sub-basins based on existing resource assessments.
Project Location:
Gavin’s Point Dam upstream to the headwaters of the Missouri River in Montana and
Wyoming
For More Information:
Joyce Shwartzendruber Steve Chick
State Conservationist State Conservationist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service
10 East Babcock Street, Room 443 100 Centennial Mall North, Room 152
Bozeman, MT 59715-4704 Lincoln, NE 68508
(406)-587-6811 (402) 437-5300

J.R. Flores Janet L. Oertly
State Conservationist State Conservationist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service
220 East Rosser Avenue 200 Fourth Street SW, Room 203
Bismarck, North Dakota, 58501-1458 Huron, SD 57350
(701)-530-2003 (605)-352-1200
Plan Designation:
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK SEDIMENTATION REPORT

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,
parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply
to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600
(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-
6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."
Upper Missouri River Basin
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................i

Introduction............................................................................................................1

Scope of the Sediment Assessment............................................................................2

Natural Resource Conservation................................................................................5

Land Use.............................................................................................................5

Soil Loss..............................................................................................................6

Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed...........................................................9

State Summaries of USGS Sediment Data..............................................................14

Additional Sediment Assessment Tools......................................................................34

Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................35

Future Phases.....................................................................................................35

Need for Continued Study.....................................................................................36

Appendix A – Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition Fact Sheet..................................37

Appendix B – Conservation Districts..........................................................................38

Appendix C – Technical Specialists...........................................................................46

Appendix D - Bibliography and References.................................................................47

Tables:
Table A - Dams and Reservoirs..................................................................................2

Table B – Number of Conservation Districts within the Basin..........................................5

Table C - Land Use / Cover........................................................................................5

Table D - Cropland...................................................................................................6

Table E - Water Erosion............................................................................................6

Table F - Wind Erosion..............................................................................................8

Table G - Corp of Engineers Sediment Survey Data.....................................................11

Table H - Rate of Storage Loss from Sediment Inflow in the Missouri River Reservoirs......13

Table I - Estimated Time to Fill Reservoirs to the 25 and 50 Percent of Storage Capacity 14

Table J - Nebraska Sediment Table...........................................................................15

Table K - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data
– South Dakota........................................................................................16

Table L - Sediment Budget for Missouri River Reservoirs in South Dakota.......................20

Table M - Estimation of Annual Sediment for Ungaged Areas of Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe,
and Lake Francis in South Dakota...............................................................22
Table N - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data
– North
Dakota........................................................................................24
Table O - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data
– Mon
tana...............................................................................................26
Table P - Summary of Sediment Inflow for Missouri River Reservoirs.............................31

Table Q - Sediment Summary of the Upper Missouri River Reservoirs...........................32

Table of Contents Upper Missouri River Basin

ii
Figures:
Figure 1 – Upper Missouri River Basin.........................................................................3

Figure 2 - Dams and Reservoirs.................................................................................4

Figure 3 - Upper Basin Water Erosion..........................................................................7

Figure 4 - Drainage Area Above Each of the Six Missouri River Dams...............................9

Figure 5- Estimated Inflow of Sediment into the Six Missouri River Reservoirs................10

Figure 6 - Estimated Storage Loss............................................................................11

Figure 7 - Reservoir Storage Loss.............................................................................12

Figure 8 - Niobrara River Sediment Load...................................................................15

Figure 9 - Location of Gaging Stations in South Dakota...............................................17

Figure 10 – Daily Mean Suspended Sediment Data in South Dakota..............................18

Figure 11 – Estimated Annual Sediment Loads for Missouri River Reservoirs
in South Dakota...................................................................................21
Figure 12 - Watershed Slopes in South Dakota...........................................................23

Figure 13 - Watershed Slopes in North Dakota...........................................................25



Upper Missouri River Basin Introduction

Phase II Sediment Assessment
for the
Upper Missouri River Basin
Introduction
This sediment assessment report is the second of a two part report developed for the
Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition (MSAC). The report addresses a MSAC request to
identify subwatershed areas with the highest potential to deliver sediment into the Upper
Missouri River Basin six mainstem reservoirs. This report analyzes the existing data
identified in Phase I and uses analytical processes to identify and rate the storage capacity
depletion for the reservoirs.
Sediment accumulates in these reservoirs at the approximate rate of 89,700 acre feet per
year according to the US Army Corp of Engineers publication, “Missouri River Mainstem
System 2008-2009 Annual Operating Plan”. In the 2007-2008 Annual Operating Plan, the
sediment rate was estimated at 92,500 acre feet per year. In Phase I, negative impacts
associated with high rates of sediment loading were identified as:
 Loss of flood storage.
 Sediment may impact hydropower production.
 Lost recreational opportunities.
 Increased water treatment costs for municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water
systems and loss of capacity, which in some cases leaves people with no suitable
water source.
 Navigation relies on a water flow. Lost reservoir capacities may make river system
operation difficult to provide adequate water supply.
 Personal property is being adversely affected by rising ground water in the upper
reaches of the reservoirs.
 Irrigation and MR&I water intakes will be impacted and may need to be relocated.
The MSAC has determined the loss of flood storage and beneficial uses of the permanent
pools are cause for this project study to be considered a high priority national and regional
water resource issue. See Appendix A – Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition Fact Sheet
for a description of MS
AC’s vision.
The reservoirs provide tremendous opportunity for environmental, economic, and social
change in the Northern Great Plains. As a result – lives, structures (homes and
businesses), infrastructures (roads and telecommunications), recreational opportunities, and
MR&I and irrigation water supplies are at risk from excessive sediment. This basin
sedimentation report documents the preliminary planning process and the technical
assistance NRCS provided to the project sponsor in assessing sedimentation issues and
concerns within the Upper Missouri River Basin.
Page 1
Scope of the Sediment Assessment Upper Missouri River Basin
Scope of the Sediment Assessment
Sedimentation concerns of the MSAC were recognized by the United States Congress in
2007. As a result of the passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
legislation was passed for Title VII – Missouri River Protection and Improvement Act, North
Dakota, and Title IX – Missouri River Restoration Act, South Dakota. A Congressional
Earmark (CE) was passed to study excessive sedimentation and related natural resource
issues as it relates to the six major U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s (COE) reservoirs in the
Upper Missouri River Basin. The following map (Figure 1) shows the entire Upper Missouri
River Basin and the individual subwatersheds that
were evaluated
The area was reviewed at the 4 digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) level, with the exception of
the Missouri-Big Sioux, 4-digit HUC 1017. Only the portion (8-digit HUC 10170101) of the
Missouri-Big Sioux, which includes Lewis and Clark Lake, was reviewed.
A technical team, comprised of NRCS employees from each of the four named states, was
formed in February 2008, and directed to compile existing sediment studies and data from
both internal and external sources. An employee from Wyoming was added to the team in
2009. Appendix C – Technical Specialists lists the specialists who contributed to this
assessment report. A technical review of the studies and data was completed and a Phase I
Preliminary Sedimentation Assessment Report was written in September 2008.
This Phase II report analyzes those sources and begins the process of identifying critical
areas and natural resource stressors which may be increasing sediment loading into the
Basins mainstem reservoirs (see Table A). Figure 2 on Page 4 displays the location of the
dams and reservoirs.
Table
A - Dams and Reservoirs
Dam
Reservoir
Gavins Point Lewis & Clark Lake
Fort Randall Lake Francis Case
Big Bend Lake Sharpe
Oahe Lake Oahe
Garrison Lake Sakakawea
Fort Peck Fort Peck Lake

Page 2
Upper Missouri River Basin Scope of the Sediment Assessment
Page 3
Figure 1 – Upper Missouri River Basin
Upper Missouri River Basin Scope of the Sediment Assessment
Page 4
Figure 2 - Dams and Reservoirs
Upper Missouri River Basin
Scope of the Sediment Assessment
Page 5
Natural Resource Conservation

There are 167 resource or conservation districts located in the assessment area. These
local units of government work in partnership with USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service and other natural resource agencies and groups to reduce erosion and sediment
transport into the Basin reservoirs. Of the 167 districts, five of these districts are tribal
conservation districts. The tribal district in Wyoming is in the developmental stage. Table B
l
ists the number of districts in each State. Appendix B – Conservation Districts lists the
name and a
ddress of each conservation district along with the county(ies) they serve.
Table B – Number of Conservation Districts within the Basin
State
Number of
Districts
Number of
Tribal Districts
Montana 49 3
Nebraska 5 0
North Dakota 28 1 *
South Dakota 46 1 *
Wyoming 34 1 **
Notes:

* The Standing Rock Tribal Conservation District
operates in both North and South Dakota with
the district office being located in North Dakota.
** Wind River Tribal Conservation District is in the
process of forming.
Land Use

The Upper Missouri River Basin’s land use and land cover, along with the basin’s climate,
geology, topography, and soils are the variables which most influence sediment delivery in
the Basin. The following tables highlight the land use in the basin.
Table C is a summary of the acres for each land use within the assessment area as defined
by the 1997
NRCS National Resources Inventory (NRI).
Table C - Land Use / Cover
Land Use/Cover
Acres
Percent
Federal Lands 34,046,500

19.7%
Cropland 27,287,900

15.8%
Tame Hayland 6,280,100

3.6%
Rangeland 82,513,900

47.8%
Pastureland 5,628,900

3.3%
Forestland 3,973,000

2.3%
CRP 5,339,600

3.1%
Urban 605,900

0.4%
Rural Transportation 1,463,100

0.8%
Minor land uses/cover 3,240,600

1.9%
Water 2,301,300

1.3%
Total 172,680,800

100.0%

Scope of the Sediment Assessment Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 6
Using 1997 NRI data, Table D lists the acres of cultivated cropland in each HUA along with
t
he percent in relationship to the total cultivated cropland in the upper basin.
Table D - Cropland
HUA

Acres
Percent
1001 Saskatchewan 6,800 0.0%
1002 Missouri Headwaters 252,300 0.9%
1003 Missouri-Marias 3,586,300 13.1%
1004 Missouri-Musselshell 1,549,900 5.7%
1005 Milk 2,490,800 9.1%
1006 Missouri-Poplar 2,695,800 9.9%
1007 Upper Yellowstone 583,800 2.1%
1008 Big Horn 443,800 1.6%
1009 Powder-Tongue 273,900 1.0%
1010 Lower Yellowstone 927,400 3.4%
1011 Missouri-Little Missouri 2,731,800 10.0%
1012 Cheyenne 631,400 2.3%
1013 Missouri-Oahe 6,253,100 22.9%
1014 Missouri-White 2,657,000 9.7%
1015 Niobrara 1,158,500 4.2%
10170101 Lewis and Clark Lake 1,045,300 3.8%
Soil Loss

Water Erosion
Using 1997 NRI data, Table E lists the average sheet and rill water erosion for each 4-digit
HUA.
The water erosion is displayed in tons per acre per year (t/a/y).
Table E - Water Erosion
HUA

Water
Erosion
10170101 Lewis and Clark Lake 4.0
1006 Missouri-Poplar 3.0
1010 Lower Yellowstone 2.0
1011 Missouri-Little Missouri 2.0
1013 Missouri-Oahe 1.8
1014 Missouri-White 1.8
1004 Missouri-Musselshell 1.7
1009 Powder-Tongue 1.7
1005 Milk 1.6
1003 Missouri-Marias 1.5
1007 Upper Yellowstone 1.5
1012 Cheyenne 1.4
1008 Big Horn 1.3
1015 Niobrara 1.0
1002 Missouri Headwaters 0.6
1001 Saskatchewan 0.4

The following Figure 3 shows the Upper Basin 4-digit sub-basins and the corresponding
water erosion listed by t/a/y.
Upper Missouri River Basin Scope of the Sediment Assessment
Figure 3 - Upper
Basin Water Erosion
Page 7
Scope of the Sediment Assessment Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 8
Wind Erosion
Using 1997 NRI data the following wind erosion for each 4-digit HUA is listed in Table F.
T
he wind erosion is displayed in t/a/y.
Table F - Wind Erosion
HUA

Wind
Erosion

1008 Big Horn 5.9
1009 Powder-Tongue 5.8
1007 Upper Yellowstone 4.9
1010 Lower Yellowstone 4.8
1004 Missouri-Musselshell 4.4
1006 Missouri-Poplar 4.3
1012 Cheyenne 3.8
1005 Milk 3.5
1003 Missouri-Marias 3.4
1014 Missouri-White 2.9
1011 Missouri-Little Missouri 2.5
1002 Missouri Headwaters 2.3
1015 Niobrara 2.3
1013 Missouri-Oahe 2.1
10170101 Lewis and Clark Lake 1.2
1001 Saskatchewan 0.3

Wind erosion may have localized secondary impacts to potential sediment loading in small
streams within the basin. While wind erosion is a significant resource concern for cropland,
it is not a major source of sediment and was not evaluated in any detail for this report.
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Nearly all the existing resource inventory data was collected by or funded by Federal
agencies, primarily the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). The technical team initially did literature searches to identify reasonable
and reliable sediment data sets.
The following section describes COE information for each of the six mainstem reservoirs and
the future anticipated sedimentation rates.
The US Army Corps of Engineers develops an annual operating plan for the Missouri River
Mainstem System, with the latest being the Missouri River Mainstem System 2008-2009
Annual Operating Plan. This operating plan presents pertinent information and plans for
regulating the dams and reservoirs under varying water supply conditions. The operating
plan provides detailed schedules for operating the six individual dams during the year to
serve the congressionally authorized project purposes; to fulfill the Corps’ responsibility to
Native American Tribes; and to comply with environmental laws.
Analysis of sediment data and drainage area information taken from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2008–2009 Annual Operating Plan, Summary of Engineering Data, illustrates the
size of each sub-basin. Figure 4 indicates the drainage area in square miles above each of
the six mainstem dams.
Figure 4 - Drainage Area Above Each of the Six Missouri River Dams.
Upper Missouri River Basin
Reservoir Drainage Area
(Reservoir Name, Square Miles, Percent of Basin)
Lake Oahe
62,090
22%
Lake Sharpe
5,840
2%
Lake Francis Case
14,150
5%
Lake Sakakawea
123,900
44%
Fort Peck Lake
57,500
21%
Lewis and Clark Lake
16,000
6%
Source of Data: Corp of Engineers 2007-2008 Annual Operating Plan
Page 9
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Based on the C
OE engineering data, the Lake Francis Case reservoir was expected to have
the highest sediment loading per square mile of the six mainstem reservoirs. Figure 5
illustrates the acre-feet of sediment expected to enter each reservoir annually (based on
design criteria and not
actual measured data).
Upper Missouri River Basin
Reservoir Sediment Inflow
(Reservoir Name, Acre-Feet, Percent of Total Sediment)
Lake Oahe
19,800
22%
Lake Sharpe
5,300
6%
Lake Francis Case
18,400
21%
Lake Sakakawea
25,900
28%
Fort Peck Lake
17,700
20%
Lewis and Clark Lake
2,600
3%
Source of Data: Corp of Engineers 2008-2009 Annual Operating Plan
Fi
gure 5- Estimated Inflow of Sediment into the Six Missouri River Reservoirs.

While the information within the operating plan is helpful in understanding the operation of
the Missouri River system, the sediment information is based on initial planning documents
and may not completely reflect current conditions. The following figures and table displays
the reservoir storage loss calculations based on sediment surveys conducted by the COE.
Figure 6 displays NRCS storage loss projections using historical COE data to depict the
storage loss for each of the six mainstem reservoirs as of 2009. The three smaller
reservoirs, located in the lower end of the Upper Basin, have by far the highest storage
losses. Lewis and Clark Lake has the highest storage loss of almost 30 percent projected to
2009. In contrast, the three largest reservoirs, located in the upper end of the Upper Basin,
have much lower storage losses of less than 7 percent.
Page 10
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed

Estimated Storage Loss in Missouri River Reservoirs
due to Sediment Inflow as of 2009
(Based on USACOE sediment surveys and reservoir data.)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Lake Oahe Lake
Sakakawea
Fort Peck Lake Sharpe Lake Francis
Case
Lewis & Clark
Lake
Storage Loss (%)
Sediment Volume / Reservoir Volume at End of Sediment Survey
Sediment Volume / Original Reservoir Volume Projected to 2009
Fig
ure 6 - Estimated Storage Loss
Table G below displays the year of the most recent sediment survey conducted by COE and
the average annual storage loss (percent).
Table G - Corp of Engineers Sediment Survey Data
Dam
Reservoir
Initial
Filling of
Reservoir
(year)
Most
Recent
Sediment
Survey
(year)
Annual
Loss
(%)
Gavins Point Lewis & Clark Lake 1955 2007 0.42
Fort Randall Lake Francis Case 1953 1996 0.30
Big Bend Lake Sharpe 1963 1997 0.27
Oahe Lake Oahe 1958 1989 0.08
Garrison Lake Sakakawea 1953 1988 0.11
Fort Peck Fort Peck Lake 1937 2007 0.08

Figure 7 displays the storage loss rate in the six reservoirs as measured in acre-feet/year.
The annual storage loss for the Lake Francis Case has varied significantly in the period
1953-1997. The average annual storage loss was 18,400 acre-feet/year for the period
1953-1997 in contrast to 12,800 acre-feet/year for the period 1958-1997.
Table H (page 13) displays the estimated number of years to fill up the reservoirs based on
CO
E historical rates of sediment inflow. Lewis and Clark Lake, Lake Francis Case, and Lake
Sharpe are filling up the fastest, ranging from 181 to 339 years, respectively. In contrast,
Lake Sakakawea, Fort Peck Lake, and Lake Oahe are filling up at a significantly slower rate,
ranging from 920 to 1,169 years.
Page 11
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Storage Loss in Missouri River Reservoirs
(Source of data is USACOE)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
193519451955196519751985199520052015
Year
Storage Loss (1000 ac-ft/yr)
Fort Peck Lake
Lake Sakakawea
Lake Oahe
Lake Sharpe
Lake Francis Case
Lewis & Clark Lake
Figure 7 - R
eservoir Storage Loss
Page 12
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 13
Table H - Rate of Storage Loss from Sediment Inflow in the Missouri River Reservoirs
Length of time in years from completion to fill reservoir to specified
percent of design volume
Missouri River
Reservoir
Period of
Sediment
Survey
Annual
Sediment
Inflow *
Design
Storage
USACOE
Estimated
Sediment
Volume as
Percent of
Total Storage
at end of
Sediment
Survey
2.5
5
10
15
20
25
50
75
100
(years) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Fort Peck Lake 70 17,700 18,688,000 6.6 26 53 106 158 211 264 528 792 1,056
Lake Sakakawea 35 25,900 23,821,000 3.8 23 46 92 138 184 230 460 690 920
Lake Oahe 31 19,800 23,137,000 2.7 29 58 117 175 234 292 584 876 1,169
Lake Sharpe 34 5,300 1,798,000 10.0 9 17 34 51 68 85 170 254 339
Lake Francis Case 43 18,400 5,418,000 14.6 7 15 29 44 59 74 147 221 295
Lewis & Clark Lake 52 2,600 470,000 28.8 5 9 18 27 36 45 90 136 181
Based on COE supplied data.
* Initial Design Estimate


Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 14
Table I shows the estimated time, in years, to fill the reservoirs to 25 and 50 percent of the
desi
gn volumes. Lewis and Clark Lake, Lake Francis Case, and Lake Sharpe are projected
to be filled up to 50 percent of the design volume in 2045, 2100, and 2133, respectively. In
contrast, Lake Sakakawea, Fort Peck Lake, and Lake Oahe are projected to be filled up to
50 percent of the design volume in 2413, 2465, and 2542, respectively.

Table I - Estimated Time to Fill Reservoirs to the 25 and 50 Percent of Storage Capacity
Length of time in years
from 2009 to fill reservoir
to 25 or 50 percent of
design volume
Year when reservoir will
be filled to 25 or 50%
of design volume
Missouri River
Reservoir
Year
Completed

25 50 25 50
(%) (%)
Ft. Peck 1937 192 456 2201 2465
Lake Sakakawea 1953 174 404 2183 2413
Lake Oahe 1958 241 533 2250 2542
Lake Sharpe 1963 39 124 2048 2133
Lake Francis Case 1953 18 91 2027 2100
Lewis & Clark Lake 1955 -9 36 2000 2045
Based on COE supplied data.

State Summaries of USGS Sediment Data

In the study area, the USGS collected and determined suspended sediment concentrations
from samples collected during storm events at various stations along with measuring
streamflow discharges. Using sediment concentration and streamflow discharge, the daily-
mean suspended sediment discharge was computed by multiplying the concentrations by
the streamflow discharges. The parameters included in the measurements are daily-mean
streamflow (cfs), daily-mean suspended sediment concentration (mg/l), and daily-mean
suspended sediment discharge (tons/day).
The USGS collected samples and determined suspended sediment size and bed-size
distributions for selected stations in the project area. This data is very periodic in nature
and available for a limited number of USGS stations.
The USGS has collected instantaneous suspended sediment data at numerous stations
throughout the basin. This data is available on the USGS web site,
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis/qwdata. The following is a USGS precaution on the
NWIS web
site that should be considered when using this data:
The data you have secured from the USGS NWISWeb database may include
data that have not received Director's approval and as such are provisional
and subject to revision. The data are released on the condition that neither
the USGS nor the United States Government may be held liable for any
damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
A discussion of this data is presented in the next section of the report.
Upper Missouri River Basin
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Nebraska
Page 15
loads have
been impacted by the operation of the Spencer Hydro Dam.
T e Niobrara River Basin and the average annual
.
able J - Nebraska Sediment Table
Station
Number Station Name
Sediment
Data Period
Average
Annual
Suspended
S
Average
Annual
V
Suspended
Contrib
uting
Drainage
The following graph (Figure 8) shows the sediment loads in the Niobrara River Basin. These
Figure 8 - Niobrara River Sediment Load
Niobrara Sediment Load in Acre Feet
USGS Station 06565500 near Verdel - Water Years 1972 Through 1981
(water year runs from October 1 through September 30)
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
A
c/Ft of Sediment Load near Verdel
able J illustrates the sub-basins of th
sedi
ment in acre feet. Further sedimentation data is currently being collected by the U.S
Corps of Engineers and their consulting group Ayers and Associates. This data is anticipated
to be available in 2010.

T
of R
ecord
ediment
(tons/year)
olume of
Sediment
(ac-ft
/year)
1
Area (mi
2
)
2

06465500 near Verdel, NE Niobrara River 1972-1981 1,566,200 799 12,600

Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 16
South Dakota
USGS Sediment Data
A summary of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations in South Dakota with
daily-mean suspended data is shown in Table K. The locations of these gaging stations are
shown in Figure 9. Sediment data is available near the mouth for all of the major tributaries
to the
Missouri River in South Dakota, including the Grand River, Moreau River, Cheyenne
River, Bad River, and White River. Little or no sediment data is available for drainage areas
east of the Missouri River. Figure 10 illustrates the magnitude of the daily-mean suspended
sediment data for USG
S gaging stations in Table K.
Table K - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data – South Dakota
Station
Number
Station Name
Sediment
Data Period
of Record
Average
Annual
Suspended
Sediment
(tons/year)
Average
Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment
(ac-ft
/year)
1

Contributing
Drainage
Area (mi
2
)
2

06357500 Grand River at Shadehill, SD 1945-1950 455,781 380 3,120
06357800 Grand River at Little Eagle, SD 1971-1976 970,905 811 5,370
06359500 Moreau River near Faith, SD 1945-1949 607,536 507 2,660
06360500 Moreau River near Whitehorse, SD 1971-1976 1,431,475 1,195 4,880
06400000 Hat Creek near Edgemont, SD 1949-1954 111,501 93 1,044
06400500 Cheyenne River near Hot Springs, SD 1945-1968 1,577,107 1,317 8,710
06437000 Belle Fourche River near Sturgis, SD 1955-1958 648,127 541 5,870
06439300 Cheyenne River at Cherry Creek, SD 1971-1976 5,459,641 4,558 23,900
06440200 South Fork Bad River near Cottonwood, SD 1989-1995 123,622 103 250
06441110 Plum Creek below Hayes, SD 1989-1995 271,133 226 252
06441400 Willow Creek near Fort Pierre, SD 1989-1990 59,762 50 ---
06441500 Bad River near Fort Pierre, SD 1971-2007 1,661,452 1,387 3,107
06446000 White River near Oglala, SD 1946-1952 263,476 220
340
(2,200 total)
06447000 White River near Kadoka, SD 1948-1954 6,629,566 5,534 5,000
06449100 Little White River near Vetal, SD 1990-1991 24,850 21
415
(590 total)
06449300 Little White River above Rosebud, SD 2002-1903 25,897 22 630 (890)
06449500 Little White River near Rosebud, SD 1990-1991 142,680 119 760 (1,020)
06450500 Little White River below White River, SD 1957-1958 83,182 69
1,310
(1,570 total)
06452000 White River near Oacoma, SD 1971-2007 7,603,931 6,348
9,940
(10,200 total)
1
Volume of sediment was calculated assuming a sediment specific weight of 55 lb/ft
3
. (tons/year multiplied by a factor (0.0008347) to
calculate ac-ft/yr)
2
Source U.S. Geological Survey; ( ), total drainage area in mi
2


Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 17
Figure 9 - Location of Gaging Stations in South Dakota
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 18
Figure 10 – Daily Mean Suspended Sediment Data in South Dakota
Upper Missouri River Basin
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 19
Sediment Budget
Utilizing the USGS suspended sediment data and COE reservoir sediment surveys, a
sediment budget was prepared for the Missouri River Reservoirs in South Dakota, as shown
in Table L. For Lake Oahe, the USGS gaged major components of the COE measured
sediment deposition was Cheyenne River (23%) and the Missouri River at Bismarck, ND
(22%). Unaccounted sediment for Lake Oahe made up 36% of the total measured COE
sediment storage. For Lake Sharpe, the USGS gaged major components of the COE
measured sediment storage was the Bad River (26%) with unaccounted sediment of 70%.
For Lake Francis Case, the USGS gaged major components of the COE measured sediment
storage was the White River (50%) with unaccounted sediment of 46%. Figure 11 (page
21) further illustrates the magnitude of the annual sediment loads for Lake Oahe, Lake
Sharpe, and
Lake Francis Case.
In connection with the sediment budget, sediment inflows for ungaged areas in South
Dakota were estimated as displayed in Table M (page 22) using a correlation with watershed
slope (Figure 12 – page 23). For Lake Oahe in South Dakota, Lake Sharpe, and Lake Francis
Case, the Grand and Moreau River sediment data was used for the watershed slope
correlations. The portions of the ungaged drainage areas of Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, and
Lake Francis Case with watershed slopes similar to the Grand and Moreau Rivers drainage
areas were multiplied by the annual sediment yield (ac-ft/yr) of the Grand and Moreau
Rivers to estimate the sediment inflows for the ungaged areas. The sediment inflow for the
ungaged drainage area for Lake Oahe in North Dakota was not estimated and instead was
included with the unaccounted sediment in the sediment budget.
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 20
Table L - Sediment Budget for Missouri River Reservoirs in South Dakota
COE Reservoir Surveys USGS Sediment Data
Missouri
River
Reservoir
Sediment
Storage
(ac-ft/yr)
Survey
Period Watershed5
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
Sediment
Inflow
2
(ac-ft/yr)

Applicable
Gage
Station4
Period of
Record
Percent
of
USACOE
Sediment
Storage
Lake Oahe 19,800 1958-1989 62,090
1
Missouri River at Bismarck, ND 5,0006 4,370 06342500

1972-1981 22
Heart River 3,310
2 232 06349000

1972-1976 1
Cannonball River 4,1002 566 06354000

1972-1976 3
ungaged Lake Oahe in ND no data no data --- --- no data
Grand River 5,370
2 811 06357800

1971-1976 4
Moreau River 4,880
2 1,195 06360500

1971-1976 6
Cheyenne River 23,900
2 4,558 06439300

1971-1976 23
ungaged Lake Oahe in SD 7,000 970 --- --- 5

Unaccounted Sediment for
Lake Oahe + ungaged Lake
Oahe - ND
--- 7,098 --- --- 36
Lake Sharpe 5,300 1963-1997 5,840
1
Bad River 3,107
2 1,387 06441500

1971-2007 26
ungaged Lake Sharpe 2,700 220 --- --- 4

Unaccounted Sediment for
Lake Sharpe
--- 3,693 --- --- 70
18,400 1953-1997 14,150
1
Lake Francis
Case
12,800 1958-1997
White River 10,200
2 6,348 06452000

1971-2007 50
ungaged Lake Francis Case 4,300 620 --- --- 5

Unaccounted Sediment for
Lake Francis Case
--- 5,832 --- --- 46
1
Source USACOE;
2Source USGS;
3Volume of sediment estimated assuming a specific weight of 55 lb/ft
3; 4See
Table K
and Table N
for
list of USGS gage stations in South Dakota and North Dakota respectively;
5See
Figure 9
for location of watersheds in South Dakota
and 6Between gage and Lake Sakakawea
Note: Annual sediment loads for Lake Oahe - SD, Lake Sharpe, and Lake Francis Case were estimated using the Grand and Moreau
measured sediment data and land slope comparisons. 1958-1997 was used for sediment budget for Lake Francis Case because 1953-
1957 was deemed not representative of long term sediment loads.
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Figure 11 –
Estimated Annual Sediment Loads for Missouri River Reservoirs in South Dakota
Page 21
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 22
Table M - Estimation of Annual Sediment for Ungaged Areas of Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, and Lake Francis in South Dakota
Ungaged Area HU Name HUC
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
Average
Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment (ac-ft/yr)
Average Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment per
mi
2
(ac-ft/yr/mi2)
Estimated Average Annual
Volume of Suspended
Sediment Based on
Watershed Slope
(ac-ft/yr)

Using
Moreau

Using
Grand

Average

7,032 0.138 764 1,180 970
10130102 2,009
10130105 3,834
Lake Oahe Lake Oahe
10130106 1,189
2,666 0.083 170 263 220
part of 10140101

1,136
10140103 837
10140104 693
Lake Sharpe Fort Randall Reservoir

4,291 0.144 491 759 620
part of 10140101

3,128
Fort Randall Reservoir
10140105 1,163
4,731 ---
10130301 684 380 0.156
10130302 1,745 380 0.156
Grand
10130303 2,302 811 0.352
5,239 1,195 0.228
10130304 1,013 507 0.196
10130305 1,568 507 0.196
10130306 2,658 ---
Moreau

3,176 1,387 0.437
Lake Francis Case
Bad
10140102 3,176 1,387 0.437


Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Figure
12 - Watershed Slopes in South Dakota
North Dakota
Sediment Loads
Utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey suspended sediment data from their gaging stations,
the following Table N was generated to illustrate which Lake Oahe sub-basins in North
Dakota had the hi
ghest annual sediment (measured in acre-feet/year).
Page 23
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 24
Table N - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data – North Dakota
Station
Number
Station Name
Sediment
Data
Period of
Record
Days of
Record
Average
Annual
Suspended
Sediment
(tons/year)
Average
Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment
(ac-
ft/year)1
Contributing
Drainage
Area (mi2)2
ac-ft
sediment
per sq-mi
06339500 Knife River near Golden Valley, ND 1946-1965

1,730 138,328

115 1,230 0.09
06340500 Knife River at Hazen, ND 1946-1948

297 230,175

192 2,240 0.09
06342500 Missouri River at Bismarck, ND 1972-1981

3,653 5,235,130

4,370 186,400 0.02
06345500 Heart River near Richardton, ND 1946-1952

2,275 311,014

260 1,240 0.21
06346500
Heart R below Heart Butte Dam
near Glen Ullin, ND
1951 365 22,026

18 1,710 0.01
06349000 Heart River near Mandan, ND 1972-1976

1,826 277,545

232 3,310 0.07
06350000 Cannonball River at Regent, ND 1965-1966

730 57,340

48 580 0.08
06352500 Cedar Creek near Pretty Rock, ND 1946-1949

1,197 44,851

37 1,340 0.03
06354000 Cannonball River at Breien, ND 1972-1976

1,827 677,984

566 4,100 0.14
1Volume of sediment was calculated assuming a sediment specific weight of 55 lb/ft
3.
2 Source U.S. Geological Survey.

Upper Missouri River Basin
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Watershed Slopes
Page 25
in sediment transport.
es in North Dakota
ads
. Geological Survey suspended sediment data from their gaging stations,
rt
The North Dakota sediment estimates are very dependent on the basin’s ability to transport
sediment once soil has become detached a
nd is able to be transported by rain or snowmelt
runoff. The following map (Figure 13) displays the impact topography and land slope have
Figure 13 - Watershed Slop
Montana
Sediment Lo
Utilizing the U.S
the following table (Table O) was generated to illustrate which sub-basins draining into Fo
Peck Lake and Lake Sakakawea had the highest annual sediment (measured in acre-
feet/year). The two sections following the table include sub-basins located not only in
Montana, but also in Wyoming and North Dakota.

Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 26
Table O - Summary of U.S. Geological Stations with Daily Suspended Sediment Data – Montana
Station
Number Station Name
Sediment
Data
Period of
Record
Days of
Record
Average
Annual
Suspended
Sediment
(tons/year)

Average
Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment
(ac-
ft/year)1
Contributing
Drainage
Area (mi
2
)2
ac-ft
sediment
per sq-mi

06309500 Middle Fork Powder River above Kaycee, WY 1951-1970 1,927 137,240 115 450 0.25
06313000 South Fork Powder River near Kaycee, WY 1950-1984 1,771 1,119,820 935 1,150 0.81
06313500 Powder River at Sussex, WY 1951-1984 1,250 2,784,950 2,325 3,090 0.75
06315000 North Fork Crazy Women near Greub, WY 1965-1968 1,096 39,785 33 174 0.19
06316400 Crazy Women Creek at Upper Station near Arvada, WY 1950-1953 730 186,880 156 945 0.17
06324500 Powder River at Moorehead, MT 1975-1994 4,431 4,464,680 3,727 8,088 0.46
06324710 Powder River at Broadus,MT 1975-1992 4,063 3,850,020 3,214 8,789 0.37
06326500 Powder River at Locate, MT 1974-1984 3,330 4,072,670 3,400 13,189 0.26
06207500 Clark Fork Yellowstone near Belfry, MT 1984 178 551,515 460 1,154 0.40
06208500 Clark Fork Yellowstone at Edgar, MT 1972-1973 365 489,465 409 2,032 0.20
06208800 Clark Fork Yellowstone near Silesia, MT 1984 214 723,795 604 2,093 0.29
06259500 Big Horn River at Thermopolis, WY 1946-52 2,428 4,041,645 3,374 8,020 0.42
06268600 Big Horn River at Worland, WY 1965-1969 1,322 3,358,000 2,803 10,810 0.26
06269000 Big Horn River near Manderson, WY 1949-1956 1,952 3,589,775 2,997 11,020 0.27
06269500 Big Horn River at Manderson, WY 1946-1949 1,191 9,704,620 8,101 11,048 0.73
06279500 Big Horn River at Kane, WY 1946-1964 6,282 6,584,235 5,496 15,765 0.35
06290500 Little Big Horn River below Pass Creek near Wyola, MT 1969-1973 1,096 98,185 82 428 0.19
06294000 Little Big Horn River near Hardin, MT 1969-1977 2,557 350,035 292 1,294 0.23
Big Horn River near Big Horn, MT (average) 1959-1972 4,114 4,131,800 3,449 22,885 0.15
Big Horn River near Big Horn, MT (1959-January 1,
1968) before dam closed
1959-1967 2,863 5,280,820 4,408 22,885 0.19
06294700
Big Horn River near Big Horn, MT (after dam closed) 1968-1972 1,251 1,502,705 1,254 22,885 0.05
06307830 Tongue River near Ashland, MT 1974-1981 2,557 137,970 115 4,062 0.03
06308500 Tongue River at Miles City, MT 1977-1985 3,018 233,600 195 5,379 0.04
06191500 Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT 1985-1992 1,628 401,135 335 2,623 0.13
06192500 Yellowstone River near Livingston, MT 1985-1986 301 880,015 735 3,551 0.21
06195600 Shields River near Livingston, MT 1999-2003 1,825 21,100 18 852 0.02
06197500 Boulder River near Contact, MT 1971-1972 366 9,490 8 226 0.04
06200000 Boulder River at Big Timber, MT 1999-2003 1,825 8,870 7 523 0.01
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 27
Station
Number Station Name
Sediment
Data
Period of
Record
Days of
Record
Average
Annual
Suspended
Sediment
(tons/year)

Average
Annual
Volume of
Suspended
Sediment
(ac-
ft/year)1
Contributing
Drainage
Area (mi
2
)2
ac-ft
sediment
per sq-mi

06202610 Stillwater River at Beehive, MT 1971-1973 731 9,125 8 371 0.02
06205000 Stillwater River near Absarokee, MT 1999-2003 1,825 7,790 7 975 0.01
06214500 Yellowstone River at Billings, MT 1976-1981 1,826 1,703,820 1,422 11,795 0.12
06295000 Yellowstone River at Forsyth, MT 1976-1981 1,059 4,514,685 3,769 40,339 0.09
06329500 Yellowstone River near Sidney, MT 1971-1994 7,459 10,209,050 8,522 63,103 0.14
06025500 Big Hole River near Melrose, MT 1960-1964 1,522 24,820 21 2,476 0.01
06018500 Beaverhead River near Twin Bridges, MT 1962-1974 4,475 29,930 25 3,619 0.01
06052500 Gallatin River at Logan, MT 1999-2003 3,285 70,200 59 1,795 0.03
06026500 Jefferson River near Twin Bridges, MT 1960-1972 3,075 114,245 95 7,632 0.01
06027200 Jefferson River at Silver Star, MT 1972-1974 730 254,405 212 7,683 0.03
06036650 Jefferson River near Three Forks, MT 1999-2003 2,190 77,000 64 9,532 0.01
06038800 Madison River near Cameron, MT 1959-1960 366 315,360 263 1,065 0.25
06054500 Missouri River at Toston, MT 49-53,99-03 11,680 128,000 107 14,669 0.01
06061500 Prickly Pear Creek near Clancy 1999-2003 1,825 417 0 192 0.00
06073500 Dearborn River near Craig 1999-2003 2,190 3,700 3 325 0.01
06089000 Sun River near Vaughn 1999-2003 12,775 41,500 35 1,320 0.03
06090800 Missouri River at Fort Benton, MT 1980 79 119,355 100 27,749 0.00
06108800 Teton River at Loma, MT 1998-2003 1,825 9,760 8 2,010 0.00
06114700 Judith River near mouth, near Winifred, MT 1998-2003 1,095 73,500 61 2,731 0.02
06115200 Missouri River near Landusky, MT 1971-1994 7,681 8,345,725 6,967 40,987 0.17
06130500 Musselshell River at Mosby, MT 1982-1994 3,808 275,940 230 7,846 0.03
06174500
Milk River 1999-2003 12,775 319000 266 22,332 0.01
06181000 Poplar River near Poplar, MT 1999-2003 1,825 23,600 20 3,174 0.01
06185500 Missouri River near Culbertson, MT
1971-1976,
1999-2003
3,650 5,612,605 4,685 15,377 0.30
06337000 Little Missouri River near Watford City, ND
1947-1948,
1971-1976
2,229 21,645 18 8,310 0.00
1Volume of sediment was calculated assuming a sediment specific weight of 55 lb/ft
3.
2 Source U.S. Geological Survey.

Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 28
Fort Peck Lake Drainage Area
The average annual sediment inflow into Fort Peck Lake since Fort Peck Dam was
constructed in 1937 is 15,600 ac-ft/yr. In the COE 2008-2009 AOP, they estimate the
sediment inflow into Fort Peck Lake for 2009 will be 17,700 ac-ft/yr. USGS stream gage
data was used to determine the amount of the sediment discharged into Fort Peck Lake. A
statewide monitoring network of 38 sites was operated from 1999-2003 by USGS in
cooperation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to provide a broad
geographic base of water-quality information on Montana streams. Additional USGS stream
gage data with varying periods of record were also available.
There is some concern with using stream gage data from various time periods and various
lengths of measurement when trying to determine the source of sediment into Fort Peck
Lake; however, this is the best available data. Table O summarizes the stream gage data
for sus
pended sediment concentrations.
The Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin Rivers combine near Three Forks, Montana to form the
Missouri River. There is no stream gage on the Madison River near its confluence with the
Jefferson River. The stream gage data near Cameron is above Ennis Lake which would
capture any suspended sediment measured at Cameron.
The suspended sediment of the Missouri River at Toston (107 ac-ft/yr) is less than the sum
of the suspended sediments from the Gallatin and Jefferson Rivers (59 + 64 = 123 ac-
ft/yr). Prickly Pear Creek near Clancy (south of Helena) contributes no sediment. Any
sediment above Prickly Pear Creek on the Missouri is probably captured by Canyon Ferry,
Hauser, and Holter dams. Downstream from these three dams there are small amounts of
sediment from the Dearborn (3 ac-ft/yr) and Sun Rivers (35 ac-ft/yr).
The next stream gage data station on the Missouri is at Fort Benton. The suspended
sediment is nearly the same as was measured at Toston (100 versus 107 ac-ft/yr). Eleven
miles below Fort Benton the Teton River flows into the Marias River which flows into the
Missouri. The Marias and Teton Rivers are deeply incised. The Teton River contributes little
sediment (8 ac-ft/yr). The Judith River flows into the Missouri from the south and also
contributes little sediment (61 ac-ft/yr). Arrow Creek, a perennial stream, flows into the
Missouri River from the south and Cow Creek, an intermittent stream, flows into the
Missouri River from the north. The last stream gage before the Missouri flows into Fort Peck
Lake is near Landusky which recorded a suspended sediment load of 6,967 ac-ft/yr. The
Musselshell River flows directly into Fort Peck Lake but contributes little sediment (230 ac-
ft/yr).
The question is “Where does the sediment come from?” The USGS gage station on the
Missouri River at Fort Benton measured only 100 ac-ft/yr sediment load. By the time the
Missouri reaches Landusky, approximately 150 miles downstream, the sediment load has
increased to 6,967 ac-ft/yr.
From Great Falls to Fort Peck Lake the Missouri River runs though a reach that was
established at the end of the last glacial advance. This reach has not reached equilibrium
and is still actively eroding. This is exacerbated by bedrock composed of soft sandstone and
shales that commonly weather into dispersive soils.
The semi-arid prairie at Fort Benton is underlain by sedimentary rocks and deposits. The
sparse vegetative cover and erodible soils in the basins and plains areas contribute to larger
suspended sediment concentrations in basin and plains streams than in mountain streams.
The surface of this area is underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary shales and sandstones that
are poorly consolidated and rapidly weather into fine grained soils. The bedrock formations
tend to be high in sodium and the soils tend to inherit the sodium content. The high sodium
Upper Missouri River Basin
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 29
content of the soils commonly results in poor vegetative cover and dispersive soils combine
with high stream gradients generated by the glacial disruption of the Missouri-Yellowstone
drainages produce high sediment yields for these drainages.
The local geology and soils, topography, vegetation, and land use determine the
susceptibility of the landscape to erosion and rate of delivery of sediment to the streams.
With the lack of stream gages to identify the sources of sediment in the Missouri River
below Fort Benton, local NRCS staff working in this part of the State, were consulted.
Cropland is more than three miles from the Missouri River. Most of the land is under a no-
till system and results in little erosion and sediment movement offsite. The grazing land is
in good condition with acceptable stocking rates.
Below Loma the Missouri River flows through high banks with steep slopes. Similar features
also occur around Fort Peck Lake. It is estimated that over half of the sediment deposited
into Fort Peck Lake is natural geologic. The Marias River flows into the Missouri River at
Loma. There is no stream gage data available for this river, but it is estimated that it
contributes 15 percent of the sediment. Farther downstream, Arrow Creek a perennial
stream, flows into the Missouri River from the south. It contributes 10 percent of the
sediment. Cow Creek is the next tributary and it flows into the Missouri River from the
north. It is an intermittent stream and contributes 5 percent of the sediment. The last 5
percent of sediment is a result of sloughing of the banks around Fort Peck Lake.
Lake Sakakawea

Drainage Area
The average annual sediment inflow into Lake Sakakawea since Garrison Dam was
constructed in 1953 is 25,900 ac-ft/yr. USGS stream gage data was used to determine the
source of the sediment inflow into Lake Sakakawea.
The Missouri River drainage below Fort Peck Dam and the Yellowstone River are the major
drainages into Lake Sakakawea. The Yellowstone River originates in Yellowstone National
Park. Table O summarizes the stream gage data for suspended sediment concentrations.
The first USGS stream gage outside the Park is at Corwin Springs.
The sediment load in the river at this point is 335 ac-ft/yr. The next stream gage in the
Yellowstone River is at Livingston which has a sediment load of 735 ac-ft/yr, an increase of
400 ac-ft/yr. The Shields (18 ac-ft/yr), Boulder (7 ac-ft/yr), and Stillwater (7 ac-ft/yr)
Rivers flow into the Yellowstone below Livingston but contribute little sediment load.
The next major river entering the Yellowstone is the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone at
Laurel. It contributes 255 ac-ft/yr of sediment load. The stream gage in the Yellowstone
River at Billings has a sediment load of 1,422 ac-ft/yr, an increase 687 ac-ft/yr above the
Livingston stream gage value.
The Yellowstone River past the Eagle sandstone outcrop at Billings has been reactivated by
channel changes established at the end of the last glacial maximum. This was when the
Missouri River drainage was permanently captured by the Mississippi River drainage system
rather than flowing into the Hudson Bay. In addition, the river valleys are cut into soft and
poorly consolidated Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments that tend to produce sodic soils.
Sodic soils are nonsaline soil containing sufficient exchangeable sodium to adversely affect
crop production and soil structure. These soils generally have a pH of 8.5 or higher and
tend to have poor vegetative cover; thus soil particles tend to disperse into water and
remain suspended. The natural factors of steep stream gradients, sodic soils, and poor
vegetation combine to produce a high sediment output in this region.
The Big Horn River flows into the Yellowstone about 50 miles east of Billings. The stream
gage data was collected from 1959-1972. The average sediment load for the period is
3,449 ac-ft/yr. This figure is misleading since the Yellowtail Dam was constructed in 1968
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 30
which has since trapped all sediment upstream of the dam. The average sediment load
from 1968-1972 is 1,254 ac-ft/yr. Stream gage data from 1999-2003 showed a reduction
in sediment load from the Big Horn River to only 167 ac-ft/yr.
The next stream gage in the Yellowstone River is 44 miles downstream at Forsyth. The
average sediment load is 3,769 ac-ft/yr, an increase of 2,347 ac-ft/yr above the Billings
stream gage value. The Tongue River flows into the Yellowstone River at Miles City and has
a sediment load of 195 ac-ft/yr.
The Powder River flows into the Yellowstone between Miles City and Glendive. It has a
sediment load of 3,400 ac-ft/yr. This is based on stream gage data from 1974-84. Using
stream gage data from 1999-2003 the sediment load was only 1,168 ac-ft/yr. These five
years were below average mean annual stream flows, which could explain the reduced
sediment load.
The last stream gage on the Yellowstone, before it flows into the Missouri, is at Sidney. The
sediment load is 8,522 ac-ft/yr, an increase of 4,753 ac-ft/yr above the Forsyth stream
gage value. The Yellowstone River flows into the Missouri River just above Lake
Sakakawea.
Three rivers flow into the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam. The Poplar River contributes
little sediment (20 ac-ft/yr) and the Milk River contributes 266 ac-ft/yr of sediment load.
There are numerous creeks and rivers that enter the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam
that have no stream gage information. After the Milk River on the north side of the Missouri
are Wolf Creek, Tule Creek, and Box Elder Creek. Below the Poplar River is Big Muddy
Creek and below Culbertson is Little Muddy Creek. On the south side of the Missouri are
Prairie Elk Creek, Sand Creek, and the Redwater River. The last stream gage on the
Missouri River, before it discharges into Lake Sakakawea, is at Culbertson, MT. The
sediment load is 4,685 ac-ft/yr.
The US Army Corps of Engineers published Technical Report CHL-98-7 in March 1998, titled
“Cumulative Erosion Impacts Analysis for the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual
Review and Update Study.” The study addressed the cumulative impacts of erosion on
changing the operation of the mainstem dams and adding additional streambank erosion
control measures. The following two paragraphs summarize results from the study.
The study evaluated stream reaches between Fort Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea. In
1995, 57 percent of the banks in the Fort Peck Reach exhibited evidence of bank instability
and mass wasting. Bank materials were weakly cohesive sandy-silts. Planar failure due to
toe scour and over steepening by fluvial bank erosion was the most common mechanism of
collapse in the study reach. Mean rates of bed scour and bank erosion were low, indicating
that the channel was at, or approaching, a condition of dynamic equilibrium. Between 1958
and 1980, the average annual bed material load at Culbertson was 825 acre feet per year.
From 1955-1966, characterized as low flow years, there was channel bed filling and bank
erosion. From 1966-1978, characterized as high flow years, there was channel bed scour
and less bank erosion. From 1955-1966, there was 1,639 acre feet of bank material
eroded. From 1966-1978, there was 870 acre feet of bank material eroded. From 1933-
1983, the volume of material scoured from the banks was 75,342 acre feet. Approximately
eight percent of the storage capacity lost in Lake Sakakawea behind Garrison Dam came
from the banks in the Fort Peck Reach. The rest of the storage loss came from material
delivered to the reservoir from the channel bed, tributaries, and other sources. These
sources include bank erosion, channel bed scour, and geologic erosion due to poor
vegetative cover caused by sodic soils.
Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 31
The Little Missouri River flows directly into Lake Sakakawea and contributes 18 ac-ft/yr of
sediment load. The Little Muddy River, White Earth River, and Little Knife River flow into
Lake Sakakawea from the north but there are no sediment gages on these rivers.
Drawing conclusions on the source of sediment in Lake Sakakawea is difficult. Stream
gages at Culbertson and Sidney show about 50 percent of the sediment inflow into the lake
as compared to actual measurements of sediment in the lake. The Little Missouri River
sediment load as well, as bank erosion within the lake itself, account for much of the
remaining sediment.
Upper Missouri River Basin Sediment Summary
Table P illustrates the impact that sediment inflow is having on the Missouri River
Reservoi
rs. The Lewis and Clark Lake, Lake Francis Case, and Lake Sharpe have the highest
annual storage loss ranging from 0.55 to 0.29%. Lake Sakakawea, Fort Peck Lake, and Lake
Oahe have annual storage losses of less than 0.11%.
Table P - Summary of Sediment Inflow for Missouri River Reservoirs
Missouri River Reservoir
COE Estimated
Annual Sediment Inflow
(ac-ft/yr)
Reservoir Storage
Capacity
(ac-ft)
Annual
Storage Loss
(%)
Lewis and Clark Lake 2,600 470,000 0.55%
Lake Francis Case 18,400 5,418,000 0.34%
Lake Sharpe 5,300 1,798,000 0.29%
Lake Sakakawea 25,900 23,821,000 0.11%
Fort Peck Lake 17,700 18,688,000 0.09%
Lake Oahe 19,800 23,137,000 0.09%

Table Q on the following page displays the amount of sediment measured for each of the
sub-basins at the USGS gaging station located nearest to each of the six mainstem
reservoirs. The table shows there is a considerable amount of unaccounted sediment based
on the USGS measured sediment and the COE sediment estimates is in each of the six
mainstem reservoirs. It appears there may be considerable bed and bank erosion occuring
on the lower end of the tributaries entering into the Missouri and the reservoirs. It is also
probable there is a certain level of bank erosion occuring on the mainstem reservoirs
themselves.
There is an obvious need to complete additional sediment budgets to account for the
measured sediment in the reservoirs. Completing such a prediction of sediment yield is
extremely complex and all significant variables must be considered to evaluate any future
effects from land use, land treatment, and geologic erosion.
Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 32
Table Q - Sediment Summary of the Upper Missouri River Reservoirs
Reservoir
Reservoir
Drainage
Area
(square
miles)
Tributaries with
Measured Sediment
Discharge to the
Reservoir
USGS Gage Station
Location
USGS
Delivered Sediment (ac-ft/yr)
COE Sediment
Survey
Average
Annual
Sediment
Accumulation

(ac-ft/yr)
Available
Storage
(ac-ft)
Annual Rate
of Storage
Capacity
Loss from All
Sediment
Sources
(%)
Annual Rate
of Storage
Capacity
Loss from
Gaged
Watershed
Sediment
(%)
Fort Peck 57,500 17,700 18,688,000 0.09 0.04
Missouri River Landusky, MT 6,967
Musselshell Moseby, MT 230
Delivered Sediment (USGS)
Subtotal
7,197 (46%)
Unidentified Source
Contribution
1
10,500 (59%)
Sakakawea 123,900 25,900 23,821,000 0.11 .06
Missouri River Culburtson, MT 4,685
Yellowstone River Sidney, MT 8,522
Little Muddy Ungaged
White Earth Ungaged
Little Knife Ungaged
Little Missouri Watford City, ND 18
Delivered Sediment (USGS)
Subtotal

13,225
(51%)

Unidentified Source
Contribution
1, 2

12,675 (49%)
Oahe 62,090 19,800 23,137,000 0.09 0.05
Missouri River Bismarck, ND 4,370
Heart River Mandan, ND 232
Cannonball Breien, ND 566
Grand Little Eagle, SD 811
Moreau Whitehorse, SD 1,195
Cheyenne River Cherry Creek 4,558
Delivered Sediment (USGS)
Subtotal

11,732
(59%)

Unidentified Source
Contribution
1
8,068 (41%)

Upper Missouri River Basin Sedimentation Assessments and Data Reviewed
Page 33
Reservoir
Reservoir
Drainage
Area
(square
miles)
Tributaries with
Measured Sediment
Discharge to the
Reservoir
USGS Gage Station
Location
USGS
Delivered Sediment (ac-ft/yr)
COE Sediment
Survey
Average
Annual
Sediment
Accumulation

(ac-ft/yr)
Available
Storage
(ac-ft)
Annual Rate
of Storage
Capacity
Loss from All
Sediment
Sources
(%)
Annual Rate
of Storage
Capacity
Loss from
Gaged
Watershed
Sediment
(%)
Lake Sharpe 5,800 5,300 1,798,000 0.29 0.08
Bad River Fort Pierre, SD 1,387 (26%)
Medicine Creek Ungaged
Unidentified Source
Contribution
1
3,913 (74%)
Lake Francis Case 14,150 18,400 5,418,000 0.34 0.12
White River Oacoma 6,348 (35%)
Unidentified Source
Contribution
1
11,950 (65%)
Lewis and Clark 16,000 2,600 470,000 0.55 0.17
Niobrara River Verdel, NE 799 (31%)
Unidentified Source
Contribution
1
1,800 (69%)
1
Unidentified Source Contribution – Ungaged tributaries discharging directly to the reservoirs, stream bank and channel erosion, bedload concentrations, in-
lake shoreline and bank erosion, gullies and channels in the breaks surrounding the reservoirs, land area between the last gaging station and the reservoirs,
etc
2 The COE estimated that approximately 8% (1,500 ac-ft/yr from 1933-1983) of the storage capacity loss in Lake Sakakawea can be attributed to bank erosion
in the Fort Peck reach of the Missouri River (below the Ft. Peck dam to the tailwaters of Lake Sakakawea). The COE also determined that between 1958 –
1980 the average annual bed load concentration measured at Culbertson was 825 ac-ft/year. These two measurements would account for an additional 9%
of the capacity loss still leaving 40% of the sediment with no known source.

Additional Sediment Assessment Tools Upper Missouri River Basin
Additional Sediment Assessment Tools
Following are other resource tools and assessments that could be used to develop a project
implementation plan to address sediment reduction:
Performance Results Systems (PRS)
NRCS reports all conservation practices planned and applied by county and State.
Starting in 2005, NRCS also began reporting practices by 8-digit HUC watershed. The
information obtained from PRS will identify those basins which currently have the
greatest number of practices installed. While PRS tracks all conservation practices, only
those practices that relate to erosion or sediment control will be analyzed in any future
study. The PRS data can be compared to both the NRI and USGS information to identify
and develop watershed priorities.
Bank Stability and Toe-Erosion Model (BSTEM)
The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has developed the Bank Stability and Toe
Erosion Model (BSTEM) that could be used to evaluate and quantify bank erosion along
the streams in the most vulnerable 4-digit HUAs. Using this model would assist in
completing a more accurate sediment budget for the entire Upper Basin. Simulating
potential sediment load reductions could be done using the model results. Identifying
the source of sediment loading and identifying potential mitigation measures to address
excessive sedimentation could result from this ARS model.
The ARS model uses Rapid Geomorphic Assessments (RGAs) along the river or stream to
rapidly analyze many sites and assign stages of channel evolution. This process
highlights the erosion processes taking place along the stream and identifies bank
stability and toe erosion concerns in that particular stream segment and system.
Missouri Water Resource Region 10 6-digit HUC Watersheds
The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has compiled significant farm,
land use, commodity, and livestock data on the 6-digit HUA. This data can be further
evaluated and analyzed to support environmental stressors which could impact sediment
delivery in the Upper Basin.
National Resources Inventory (NRI)
NRCS has post 1997 NRI data waiting to be compiled and certified for public use.
Considerable rangeland and grazing land data has been collected since 2000. This data,
along with updates to past (1982 – 1997) primary sampling unit (PSU) data should be
evaluated for its applicability in addressing sedimentation impacts within each of the 4-
digit sub-basins.
Integrated Data for Enterprise Analysis (IDEA)
Natural resource data collected and analyzed by NRCS’s application IDEA should be
explored for applicability to address Upper Missouri River Basin sedimentation issues.
This tool provides a one stop location to find integrated agency reports and analysis
tools for NRCS employees. The fundamental concepts for IDEA surround the need and
goal to provide a corporately recognized strategy for data access, analysis, and reporting
of NRCS data.
The purpose of the IDEA application and supporting technology is to facilitate enterprise
analysis by providing the integration of multiple databases, thereby allowing users to
compare various types of related information side-by-side that is not currently available
in one application.
Page 34
Upper Missouri River Basin Summary and Conclusions
Summary and Conclusions
Although all six of the Missouri River Reservoirs in the Upper Missouri River Basin are
experiencing storage losses due to sediment, the three smallest reservoirs (Lewis and Clark
Lake, Lake Francis Case, and Lake Sharpe) located in the lower part of the basin have been
far more significantly impacted than the other reservoirs. As of 2009, Lewis and Clark Lake
has a storage loss of almost 30 percent. Using COE supplied sediment data, Lewis and Clark
Lake, Lake Francis Case, and Lake Sharpe are projected to be at 50% of their design
volume in the years 2045, 2100, and 2133, respectively.
Sediment budgets were prepared for the six Missouri River Reservoirs using COE and USGS
sediment data. An analysis of these sediment budgets showed that additional data needs to
be collected; the sediment inflow that could not be accounted for ranged from 41 to 74% of
the total sediment in the reservoirs.
Until all sediment sources have been identified and quantified, a comprehensive sediment
budget cannot be developed. Any watershed treatment/sediment reduction plan will need a
sediment budget to ensure the proposed strategies will be effective.
The technical team recommends any future proposals focus on the unidentified source
contributions that cannot be quantified using existing databases. This includes, but is not
limited to, stream channel bed and bank sediment loads, in-lake bank and shoreline
sedimentation, and un-gaged land areas that discharge sediment directly to a reservoir.
These types of evaluations are complex and require specialized sediment
assessment/evaluation tools, resources, and sediment transport specialists. Resource
agencies and groups, such as USGS, ARS Sedimentation Lab, and COE have developed
professionally accepted procedures, have the specialized staff and resources available, and
routinely collect and analyze sediment data.
In order for MSAC to achieve their objectives they may need to call upon other agency
expertise. A phase III study will likely include sediment data collection or analysis which
will require one or more of the agencies identified above as the key project leader.
Future Phases

Future Phases III and IV will need to address sediment budgets, and identify
environmentally and economically feasible mitigation plans to reduce the sediment loads in
the six mainstem reservoirs.
Continued interagency coordination will be essential to address sediment availability and
erosion in the sub-basin watersheds. Transport and deposition of sediment in the Missouri
River and six mainstem reservoirs will need to be addressed through an interagency and
landowner approach. The Corps of Engineers will need to be the lead agency when
addressing resource issues that directly impact the reservoirs and their operation. USGS
and ARS should be involved in measuring and assessing sediment transport within the
stream systems. NRCS and the conservation districts from each State need to play a key
role in getting the necessary land treatment on the most critical and vulnerable sub-
watersheds that are contributing significant sediment to the stream systems and reservoirs.
The NRCS Technical Team recommends in phase III or IV the development of a matrix to
identify and prioritize the Upper Basin’s 4-digit HUAs as they relate to potential
sedimentation resource issues. This matrix would utilize NRI soil erosion data from NRCS
and USGS and COE sediment data, along with other sediment studies from agencies, such
as ARS that could assist local conservation decision-makers to prioritize their conservation
needs and resources.
Page 35
Summary and Conclusions Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 36
Need for Continued Study

As was highlighted in the Phase I Report, the following is a general list of opportunities that
could be gained through the continued evaluation, planning, and implementation of local
ordinances, conservation practices, and land treatment systems within the upper basin:
 Retention of flood storage capacity to reduce downstream flood impacts from large
rainfall events.
 Restoration of riparian zones.
 Protect public safety.
 Maintain recreational opportunities.
 Reduce or prevent increased encroachment along the river and stream system and in
the floodplain.
 Protect prime and important farmlands.
 Protect real estate values.
 Protect transportation infrastructure.
 Protect fish and wildlife habitats.
 Maintain biodiversity along and within Missouri River reservoirs.
 Protect Federally listed threatened and endangered species, as well as, State listed
threatened and endangered species or State list of Species on Conservation Priority.
These opportunities and other resource issues are reflected in MSAC’s updated fact sheet
located in Appendix A – Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition Fact Sheet.

Upper Missouri River Basin Appendix A – Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition
Appendix A – Missouri Sedimentation Action Coalition Fact Sheet
MISSOURI SEDIMENTATION ACTION COALITION
Following are some facts about the serious problem of sediment accumulation in the Missouri River
mainstem reservoirs, and the MSAC position on this problem. The six dams, Fort Peck, Garrison,
Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall and Gavins Point provide many benefits to people in many states over
the entire U.S. Sediment accumulation in the reservoirs is a serious problem, which is not being
sufficiently addressed, although studies are being done.

FACTS
 Sediment accumulates in these reservoirs at the approximate rate of 89,700 acre feet per year. That
is the equivalent of 10 square miles of mud 14 feet deep.
 Sediment accumulation in the six reservoirs of the system has totaled over 4,800,000 acre feet since
the dams were completed. This is the equivalent of a lake 100 miles long, 10 miles wide, and
having an average depth of over 71/2 feet. That is storage we can not afford to lose.
 Flood control averages approximately 500 million dollars per year in benefits, and flood control
benefits alone have paid for the dams. Sediment accumulation will ultimately destroy most of that
benefit.
 Hydropower produced by the dams is sold by WAPA and these sales average 240 million dollars
per year. Sediment will destroy much of that benefit, and has already affected some power
production. The eight year drought has hurt hydropower production, resulting in increased power
costs to many users, which is an indicator of what the loss of hydropower benefits will be if there
are no reservoirs.
 Irrigation and drinking water intakes have been affected already, and this will get worse. In many
areas, there is no other suitable water source. Storage lost to sediment each year is enough to
provide 800,000 people 100 gallons per person per day for an entire year
 Navigation relies on a water flow in the river adequate to float barges. The reservoirs can not
provide enough water if they are filled with sediment,
 Recreation is a major industry, but is being affected by sediment accumulation and low water
levels.
 Sediment is causing environmental degradation in the reservoirs and on the tributary streams, with a
loss of wildlife habitat.
 Personal property is being affected, and the federal government is in the process of spending
millions of dollars in a “Buy Out’ program which does not deal with the problems. It only
addresses the symptoms.
 The drought has been major issue, but the droughts always end. Sediment will not, unless we do
something to reduce and remove sediment from the reservoirs.
MSAC POSITION
 These Dams are a National Resource, and must be recognized as such.
 Sediment is a problem now, and that problem can only get worse unless it is addressed
 The technology exists to alleviate this problem. It is not a technical issue, it is a political issue.
Congress must act to start and continue the correction process.
 The current criteria for computation of a benefit / cost ratio analysis must be modified or,
preferably, eliminated altogether. Full credit of benefits must be included in calculations.
 The dams and reservoirs are too valuable to lose to sediment. They must be preserved.
For more information, contact Howard Paul, Executive Director
1511 Holiday Drive, Canton, SD 57013 tel. 605-987-4165, or cellular 605-770-0998
Email hpaul@sio.midco.net
Page 37
Appendix B – Conservation Districts Upper Missouri River Basin

Appendix B – Conservation Districts
The following table indicates the name, address, and county(ies) served by each
conservation district within the Upper Missouri River Basin. The Tribal Conservation
Districts are shown at the end of the table.
District Name
County(ies)
Contact Address
Montana Conservation Districts


Beaverhead County Conservation District Beaverhead
420 Barrett St.
Dillon, MT 59725
Big Horn County Conservation District Big Horn
724 W. 3rd St.
Hardin, MT 59034
Big Sandy Conservation District Big Sandy
PO Box 218
Big Sandy, MT 59520
Bitterroot Conservation District Bitterroot
1709 N. 1st St.
Hamilton, MT 59840
Blaine County Conservation District Blaine
P.O. Box 189
Chinook, MT 59523
Broadwater County Conservation District Broadwater
415 S. Front Street
Townsend, MT 59644
Carbon County Conservation District Carbon
PO Box 510
Jolliet, MT 59041
Carter County Conservation District Carter
P.O. Box 313
Ekalaka, MT 59324
Cascade County Conservation District Cascade
12-3rd St. NW, Upper Level
Great Falls, MT 59404
Chouteau County Conservation District Chouteau
P.O. Box 309
Fort Benton, MT 59442
Custer County Conservation District Custer
3120 Valley Dr. E.
Miles City, MT 59301
Daniels County Conservation District Daniels
P.O. Box 605
Scobey, MT 59263
Dawson County Conservation District Dawson
102 Fir St. FP
Glendive, MT 59330
Deer Lodge Valley Conservation District Deer Lodge, Powell
1 Hollenback Rd
Deer Lodge, MT 59722
Fergus County Conservation District Fergus
211 McKinley, Suite 3
Lewistown, MT 59457
Gallatin County Conservation District Gallatin
3710 W. Fallon St., Box B
Bozeman, MT 59718
Garfield County Conservation District Garfield
P.O. Box 369
Jordan, MT 59337
Glacier County Conservation District Glacier
#1 Third Street NE
Cutbank, MT 59427
Hill County Conservation District Hill
206 25th St. West
Havre, MT 59501
Page 38
Upper Missouri River Basin
Appendix B – Conservation Districts
Page 39
District Name
County(ies)
Contact Address
Jefferson Valley Conservation District
Jefferson & Upper
Madison
PO Box 890
Whitehall, MT 59759
Judith Basin County Conservation District Judith Basin
P.O. Box 386
Stanford, MT 59479
Lewis & Clark County Conservation
District
Lewis & Clark
790 Colleen St.
Helena, MT 59601
Liberty County Conservation District Liberty
P.O. Box 669
Chester, MT 59522
Little Beaver Conservation District Fallon
P.O. Box 917
Baker, MT 59313
Lower Musselshell Conservation District
Musselshell &
Golden Valley
109 Railroad Ave. E.
Roundup, MT 59072
Madison Conservation District Eastern Madison
PO Box 606
Ennis, MT 59729
McCone County Conservation District McCone
P.O. Box 276
Circle, MT 59215
Meagher County Conservation District Meagher
P.O. Box 589
White Sulphur Springs, MT 59645
Mile High Conservation District Silver Bow
PO Box 890
Whitehall, MT 59759
Park County Conservation District Park
5242 Hwy 89 South
Livingston, MT 59047
Petroleum County Conservation District Petroleum
P.O. Box 118
Winnett, MT 59087
Phillips Conservation District Phillips
HC 72 Box 7615
Malta, MT 59538
Pondera County Conservation District Pondera
406 N. Main
Conrad, MT 59425
Powder River County Conservation
District
Powder River
P.O. Box 180
Broadus, MT 59317
Prairie County Conservation District Prairie
P.O. Box 622
Terry, MT 59349
Richland County Conservation District Richland
HCR 89 Box 5165A
Sidney, MT 59270
Roosevelt County Conservation District Roosevelt
P.O. Box 517
Culbertson, MT 59218
Rosebud County Conservation District Rosebud
P.O. Box 1200
Forsyth, MT 59327
Ruby Valley Conservation District Western Madison
P.O. Box 295
Sheridan, MT 59749
Sheridan County Conservation District Sheridan
119 N. Jackson
Plentywood, MT 59254
Stillwater County Conservation District Stillwater
P.O. Box 48
Columbus, MT 59019
Appendix B – Conservation Districts Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 40
District Name
County(ies)
Contact Address
Sweet Grass County Conservation District Sweet Grass
P.O. Box 749
Big Timber, MT 59011
Teton County Conservation District Teton
RT2, Box 240
Choteau, MT 59422
Toole County Conservation District Toole
1125 Oilfield Ave.
Shelby, MT 59474
Treasure County Conservation District Treasure
PO Box 231
Hysham, MT 59038
Upper Musselshell Conservation District Wheatland
P.O. Box 201
Harlowton, MT 59036
Valley County Conservation District Valley
54062 Hwy 2 W. #2
Glasgow, MT 59230
Wibaux County Conservation District Wibaux
502 2nd Ave NW
Wibaux, MT 59353
Yellowstone County Conservation District Yellowstone
1629 Ave. D, Bldg A, Suite 4
Billings, MT 59102
Nebraska Resource Districts


Lewis & Clark Natural Resources District Cedar, Dixon, Knox
608 N. Robinson Avenue
P.O. Box 518
Hartington, NE 68739-0518
Lower Niobrara White Natural Resources
District
Boyd, Holt, Knox,
Keya Paha
410 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 350
Butte, NE 68722-0350
Middle Niobrara White Natural Resources
District
Brown, Cherry,
Keya Paha, Rock
526 E. 1st Street
Valentine, NE 69201
Upper Elkhorn Natural Resources District
Antelope, Holt,
Rock, Wheeler
301 North Harrison Street
O'Neill, NE 68763
Upper Niobrara White Natural Resources
District
Dawes, Rock Butte,
Sheridan, Sioux
430 East Second Street
Chadron, NE 69337
North Dakota Soil Conservation Districts
Adams County Soil Conservation District Adams
602 2nd Ave N, Box 872
Hettinger, ND 58639-0872
Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District Bowman, Slope
111 2nd Ave NW, Box 920
Bowman, ND 58623-0920
Burke Soil Conservation District Burke
5 Roosevelt Ave., Box 336
Bowbells, ND 58721-0336
Burleigh County Soil Conservation District Burleigh
1511 E Interstate Ave
Bismarck, ND 58503-0560
Cedar Soil Conservation District Sioux
21 N Main St, Box 47
Selfridge, ND 58568-0047
Central Stark County Soil Conservation
District
Stark
2493 4th Ave W, Room C
Dickinson, ND 58601-2623
Divide County Soil Conservation District Divide
106 Main St, Box 66
Crosby, ND 58730-0066
Upper Missouri River Basin
Appendix B – Conservation Districts
Page 41
District Name
County(ies)
Contact Address
Dunn County Soil Conservation District Dunn
105 Rodeo Drive, Box 359
Killdeer, ND 58640-0359
Emmons County Soil Conservation
District
Emmons
318 South Milwaukee Avenue
Linton, ND 58552-7612
Golden Valley Soil Conservation District
Golden Valley,
Billings
PO Box 490
Beach, ND 58621-0490
Grant County Soil Conservation District Grant
103 Dakota St., Box 257
Carson, ND 58533-0257
James River Soil Conservation District Dickey
51 N 1st St, Box 190
Ellendale, ND 58436-0190
Kidder County Soil Conservation District Kidder
515 Hwy. 10 West
Steele, ND 58482
Logan County Soil Conservation District Logan
103 E. Lake St., Box 240
Napoleon, ND 58561-0240
McIntosh County Soil Conservation
District
McIntosh
118 E Main, Box 389
Ashley, ND 58413
McKenzie County Soil Conservation
District
McKenzie
109 5th St SW, Box 583
Watford City, ND 58854-0583
Mercer County Soil Conservation District Mercer
1400 Hwy. 49 N, #102
Beulah, ND 58523-6066
Morton County Soil Conservation District Morton
2540 Overlook Lane
Mandan, ND 58554
Mountrail Soil Conservation District Mountrail
21 1st St SE, Box 355
Stanley, ND 58784-0715
Oliver Soil Conservation District Oliver
345 Center Ave. S, Box 87
Center, ND 58530-0087
Sheridan County Soil Conservation
District
Sheridan
123 Main, Box 346
McClusky, ND 58463
Slope-Hettinger Soil Conservation District Slope, Hettinger
319 Brown Ave.
Mott, ND 58646-0190
South McLean County Soil Conservation
District
McLean
24 2nd Ave. E, Box 537
Turtle Lake, ND 58575-0537
Stutsman County Soil Conservation
District
Stutsman
1301 Business Loop East
Jamestown, ND 58401-5946
Ward Soil Conservation District Ward
1920 13th Street SE
Minot, ND 58701
West McLean County Soil Conservation
District
McLean
140 5th Ave, SW, Box 598
Garrison, ND 58540-0598
Western Soil Conservation District Stark, Billings
2493 4th Ave. W, Room C
Dickinson, ND 58601-2623
Williams County Soil Conservation District Williams
1106 W 2nd St
Williston, ND 58801-5804



Appendix B – Conservation Districts Upper Missouri River Basin
Page 42
District Name
County(ies)
Contact Address
South Dakota Conservation Districts


American Creek Conservation District Lyman
P.O. Box 156
Kennebec, SD 57544
Aurora Conservation District Aurora
P.O. Box 277
Plankinton, SD 57368
Bennett County Conservation District Bennett
103 E Bennett Ave
Martin, SD 57551
Bon Homme Conservation District Bon Homme
P.O. Box 45
Tyndall, SD 57066
Brule/Buffalo Conservation District Brule, Buffalo
200 S. Paul Gust Rd, Ste 111
Chamberlain, SD 57325
Butte Conservation District Butte
1837 5th Ave
Belle Fourche, SD 57717
Campbell County Conservation District Campbell
P.O. Box 153
Mound City , SD 57646
Charles Mix Conservation District Charles Mix
P.O. Box 249
Lake Andes, SD 57356
Clay County Conservation District Clay
121 W. Kidder #103
Vermillion, SD 57069
Clearfield/Keyapaha Conservation District Tripp
113 S. Madison
Winner, SD 57580
Corson Conservation District Corson
P.O. Box 47
McIntosh, SD 57641
Custer Conservation District Custer
25365 US Hwy 385
Custer, SD 57730
Davison Conservation District Davison
1820 N. Kimball St. Suite B
Mitchell, SD 57301
Dewey County Conservation District Dewey
P.O. Box 66
Timber Lake, SD 57656
Douglas County Conservation District Douglas
P.O. Box 28
Armour, SD 57313
East Pennington Conservation District Pennington
P.O. Box 308
Wall, SD 57790
Edmunds County Conservation District Edmunds
P.O. Box 25
Ipswich, SD 57451
Elk Creek Conservation District Meade
2202 W. Main
Sturgis, SD 57785
Fall River Conservation District Fall River
341 S. Chicago Street
Hot Springs, SD 57747
Faulk Conservation District Faulk
P.O. Box 489
Faulkton, SD 57438